We have tried to limit government once, and you are right it hasnt worked. Now the question is whether a government CAN potentially do it or if no Gov can do better.

First of all no gov is not an option that will happen in the near future (neither is limited gov) but we are thinking ideally. A government could make sure that their are certain "laws" that are essential for all citizens i.e. no initiating force. Then we could have private systems of protection, but otherwise if there is no government what makes sure that even that "law" is maintained across all police forces?

You might be surprised. New Hampshire is trending rapidly towards little or no government, as it is the focus of the Free State Project. Inherent oxymoron aside, it's a great idea, and you should at least look into it.

So, the second part of your question could be rephrased as "If there is no monopoly on law, how will law be maintained?"

The answer to that is simultaneously simple, and complex. The simple answer (as it is with most libertarian questions) is "the market will decide upon a fair system". That's going to seem like handwaving, and in a sense, it is. But there is a more involved answer, which explains exactly how the market will decide upon a fair system of law, which I will briefly summarize here:

Private law is practiced by what are called arbiters. Arbitration is already a common practice in business, where they don't want to bring their dealings into court. In any dispute, there are two sides. Both would like to see the dispute resolved as fairly (for them) as possible. Since both sides would like a fair shake, they both seek arbiters who will deal with them fairly. Perhaps they can even agree on one. That would be best, since it's cheaper for all concerned. But perhaps they cannot decide on a single arbiter. In that case they each choose one who they feel will best represent their case, and these two arbiters then agree on a third, who will ultimately decide their case. Arbiters who have a reputation for dealing fairly will get more business than those who do not.

That's the nutshell description, you'll get a more in-depth examination of the system if you read the books I provide in the "book club" thread.

To be honest Im just playing devils advocate...Im completely on your side there are just very few people that give this argument and I really appreciate hearing your side.

In saying that, Hitler was elected. The majority can and is wrong. Under a completely free system like you advocate, what is stopping people voting/electing/paying for a "police" service that attacks others of a certain race/religion etc. This could absolutely happen and it could be feudalism in a sense. With no Gov or document that protects against that one thing - protecting against initiators of force - than technically no one has to. Yes if we are dealing with ideal citizens that think correctly they wont do this, but we are dealing with reality. People are irrational and they would do this.

In saying that, Hitler was elected. The majority can and is wrong. Under a completely free system like you advocate, what is stopping people voting/electing/paying for a "police" service that attacks others of a certain race/religion etc. This could absolutely happen and it could be feudalism in a sense. With no Gov or document that protects against that one thing - protecting against initiators of force - than technically no one has to. Yes if we are dealing with ideal citizens that think correctly they wont do this, but we are dealing with reality. People are irrational and they would do this.

True, true. But this system rather presupposes that a majority of the population realizes that initiating force is wrong. This is a logical supposition, since nobody likes to get hit for no reason, and any system that prevents them from being hit for no reason will likely get a majority support. Likewise, arbiters that support people who hit other people for no reason will only get business from people who hit people for no reason, because nobody is going to want to get hit for no reason, and then take their case to arbitration only to get victimized a second time. Similarly, a private police service that hits people for no reason will be feared, rather than respected, and viewed as the thugs they are. They might get business, again, from the people who like to hit people for no reason, but they will be constantly inundated with arbitration requests - all that hitting people for no reason - and no other defense agency will deal with them, because any conflict is almost certain to devolve into violence - started by the "aggressive" police force, no doubt.

Now, as I've stated in another thread, if the majority of people think that initiating force against a group of people is OK, as long as they're black, or have red hair, or whatever silly reason they come up with, then no societal system will actively prevent that, and most will simply enshrine it into law. Unequivocally saying that initiating force is never right, ever, is the best way to prevent that sort of silliness.

Lysander Spooner's quote, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” gets truer every day.

That quote always bothers me. It's an appeal to consequences with conveniently no anarchist comparison, against a useful but imperfect safety mechanism.

Government, in order to be effective, must be able to reach outside of it's cage. Any cage that will allow it to reach outside, is not strong enough to hold it.

What do you mean by "reach out of its cage"? Are you talking about the slight or uncommon exceptions most people will tolerate, like DUI self-incrimination and Guantanamo torture?

Myrkul, you said that most people would pay/vote for the police/law forces that protect all citizens from initiating force. So their will eventually be one or a few forces that are bigger and better and are based off of the beliefs of the majority (no initiating force) so when one police force from alabama decides that blacks should be hung will eventually be taken down by the bigger/stronger police force that is obviously against this. Unfortunately, we have to get lucky that the majority is ethical and that is a big risk. We could be run by that unethical police force but its not like anyone is not living under an unethical police force now anyway.

Unfortunately, we have to get lucky that the majority is ethical and that is a big risk.

Very true, especially in a democracy. There's a little breakdown of the necessity of government I like to refer back to:

Quote

Logically, there are four possibilities as to the mixture of good and evil people in the world:

All men are moral. All men are immoral. The majority of men are immoral, and a minority moral. The majority of men are moral, and a minority immoral.

(A perfect balance of good and evil is practically impossible.)

In the first case (all men are moral), the government is obviously not needed, since evil cannot exist.

In the second case (all men are immoral), the government cannot be permitted to exist for one simple reason. The government, it is generally argued, must exist because there are evil people in the world who desire to inflict harm, and who can only be restrained through fear of government retribution (police, prisons et al). A corollary of this argument is that the less retribution these people fear, the more evil they will do.

However, the government itself is not subject to any force or retribution, but is a law unto itself. Even in Western democracies, how many policemen and politicians go to jail?

Thus if evil people wish to do harm, but are only restrained by force, then society can never permit a government to exist, because evil people will work feverishly to grab control of that government, in order to do evil and avoid retribution. In a society of pure evil, then, the only hope for stability would be a state of nature, where a general arming and fear of retribution would blunt the evil intents of disparate groups. As is the case between nuclear-armed nations, a “balance of power” breeds peace.

The third possibility is that most people are evil, and only a few are good. If that is the case, then the government also cannot be permitted to exist, since the majority of those in control of the government will be evil, and will rule despotically over the good minority. Democracy in particular cannot be permitted, since the minority of good people would be subjugated to the democratic control of the evil majority. Evil people, who wish to do harm without fear of retribution, would inevitably control the government, and use its power to do evil free of the fear of consequences.

Good people do not act morally because they fear retribution, but because they love virtue and peace of mind – and thus, unlike evil people, they have little to gain by controlling the government. In this scenario, then, the government will inevitably be controlled by a majority of evil people who will rule over all, to the detriment of all moral people.

The fourth option is that most people are good, and only a few are evil. This possibility is subject to the same problems outlined above, notably that evil people will always want to gain control over the government, in order to shield themselves from just retaliation for their crimes. This option only changes the appearance of democracy: because the majority of people are good, evil power-seekers must lie to them in order to gain power, and then, after achieving public office, will immediately break faith and pursue their own corrupt agendas, enforcing their wills through the police and the military. (This is the current situation in democracies, of course.) Thus the government remains the greatest prize to the most evil men, who will quickly gain control over its awesome power – to the detriment of all good souls – and so the government cannot be permitted to exist in this scenario either.

It is clear, then, that there is no situation under which a government can logically or morally be allowed to exist.

Regardless of what option we live under the people need to (for the most part) find morals somehow and education is the only way. And that is almost impossible given the current state of education. The US has failed because they created a moral country without a system that protected against the immoral electing the immoral and then didnt restrict the immoral from putting the immoral into law. Totally off topic so I will stop after this.

how can we expect people to be moral when the study of human action (praxeology) and philosophy are practically not talked about in schools of all levels. And they are the central teachings for everyone no matter what their beliefs. The study of how all humans act - including yourself - and the study of how people should act morally are essential.

We dont teach people how to think, we teach them what to think and not ask questions. We breed dependence and preach dependence as a moral virtue and we eventually get no one that can live for themselves independently...without initiating force might I add

We dont teach people how to think, we teach them what to think and not ask questions. We breed dependence and preach dependence as a moral virtue and we eventually get no one that can live for themselves independently...without initiating force might I add

republicans free the body constrict the minddemocrats free the mind but restrict the body

Who is for freedom anymore?There are fascists, communists, socialists and only a select few are truly capitalist. America was, a long time ago, destroyed and it only keeps sinking lower and lower. :,( *thats a tear*

What do you mean by "reach out of its cage"? Are you talking about the slight or uncommon exceptions most people will tolerate, like DUI self-incrimination and Guantanamo torture?

No, I mean things like the interstate commerce clause, by which the US federal government has gained at least half of its current mass.

So when you say it needs to "reach out of its cage to be effective", are you saying that the commerce clause made the government more effective? Maybe we would have been better off with a much less vague commerce clause, requiring states to reach mutual agreements instead.

What do you mean by "reach out of its cage"? Are you talking about the slight or uncommon exceptions most people will tolerate, like DUI self-incrimination and Guantanamo torture?

No, I mean things like the interstate commerce clause, by which the US federal government has gained at least half of its current mass.

So when you say it needs to "reach out of its cage to be effective", are you saying that the commerce clause made the government more effective? Maybe we would have been better off with a much less vague commerce clause, requiring states to reach mutual agreements instead.

I don't think many minarchists will proudly stand by that clause.

And yet, I think I might be content with it, since it is more in line with the principles of voluntaryism. It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.